Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Assessing observed and modelled spatial distributions of ice water path using satellite data
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Space Technology.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Space Technology.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6389-1160
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Space Technology.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4478-2185
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Earth and Space Sciences.
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: Atmospheric Chemistry And Physics, ISSN 1680-7316, E-ISSN 1680-7324, Vol. 11, no 1, 375-391 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The climate models used in the IPCC AR4 show large differences in monthly mean ice water path (IWP). The most valuable source of information that can be used to potentially constrain the models is global satellite data. The satellite datasets also have large differences. The retrieved IWP depends on the technique used, as retrievals based on different techniques are sensitive to different parts of the cloud column. Building on the foundation of Waliser et al. (2009), this article provides a more comprehensive comparison between satellite datasets. IWP data from the CloudSat cloud profiling radar provide the most advanced dataset on clouds. For all its unmistakable value, CloudSat data are too short and too sparse to assess climatic distributions of IWP, hence the need to also use longer datasets. We evaluate satellite datasets from CloudSat, PATMOS-x, ISCCP, MODIS and MSPPS in terms of monthly mean IWP, in order to determine the differences and relate them to the sensitivity of the instrument used in the retrievals. This information is also used to evaluate the climate models, to the extent that is possible. ISCCP and MSPPS were shown to have comparatively low IWP values. ISCCP shows particularly low values in the tropics, while MSPPS has particularly low values outside the tropics. MODIS and PATMOS-x were in closest agreement with CloudSat in terms of magnitude and spatial distribution, with MODIS being the better of the two. Additionally PATMOS-x and ISCCP, which have a temporal range long enough to capture the inter-annual variability of IWP, are used in conjunction with CloudSat IWP (after removing profiles that contain precipitation) to assess the IWP variability and mean of the climate models. In general there are large discrepancies between the individual climate models, and all of the models show problems in reproducing the observed spatial distribution of cloud-ice. Comparisons consistently showed that ECHAM-5 is probably the GCM from IPCC AR4 closest to satellite observations

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 11, no 1, 375-391 p.
National Category
Aerospace Engineering
Research subject
Space Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-8563DOI: 10.5194/acp-11-375-2011Local ID: 7138785a-666e-40e3-8766-1dc830b82545OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-8563DiVA: diva2:981501
Note
Validerad; 2011; 20110131 (ysko)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2017-10-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Eliasson, SalomonBuehler, StefanMilz, Mathias
By organisation
Space Technology
In the same journal
Atmospheric Chemistry And Physics
Aerospace Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 31 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf